This session is designed as an opportunity for those who plan to undertake or supervise evaluation or research on blended education to share perspectives, to work together to build a common language, and to articulate the issues surrounding research and evaluation in this rapidly growing field. The afternoon will open with a discussion of the broad purposes of, and models for, K-12 blended learning, followed by a series of small-group round tables in which we will discuss the issues, challenges, and needs faced by those attempting to implement blended education, the key research questions that need to be addressed, the research and evaluation methods that are appropriate for these questions, and the data and knowledge management systems that can support this research. Participants will take with them examples of research and evaluation approaches specific to blended education, as well as promising questions for advancing practice through comparisons within and across models.
Session Twitter Hashtag: #vss308p2
Presentation Materials and Contributions
AGENDA Overview and introductions of facilitators Introductions of participants by organization/context type Definitions and purposes of blended education: --Changing the time, place, and nature of teaching and learning possible in K-12 education
Overview of blended education models as outlined in the 2010 and 2011 Innosight reports --A framework with attention to the alignment of models with programs' purposes and missions
Integrating online and onground, sometimes with a reduction in classroom time and with a level of flexibility in time, place, path, pace
Ideally in a redesign of the teaching and learning experience to leverage o interactions in various environments, o tools for engagement, o opportunities for personalization and reflection o practice and feedback
o Online courses accessed in the school lab as part of a student’s schedule
o Online courses accessed outside of school supplementing a student’s schedule
School-level blending integrates online and onground experiences in the same course (KIPP, Rocketship, Riverside, Thesys)
o Activities experienced as a full class group in the same room o Activities experienced in small groups in the same room
o Activities occurring in a classroom and a lab
o Activities occurring in a school, online and offsite according to the teacher’s design
o Activities occurring in a school and online according to individual student needs
o Activities occurring primarily online with teacher/tutor support as needed by individual students
o Activities occurring primarily online with onsite teacher/tutor support as needed by individual students
o Activities occurring primarily online and offsite with teacher/tutor interaction onsite as needed by individual students
--Table discussions and response to models and definitions: limits, gaps, aids to understanding possibilities...?
Examples of blended education program effectiveness measures and findings showing where the field is at this time --What questions have been ASKED, what are the greatest gaps that remain? --What models are associated with different measures? --What research questions have been addressed, what are the greatest gaps that remain? --What models HAVE BEEN examined?
--What measures and findings have participants used?
Questions of importance for guiding practice that can be addressed by research and evaluation --What have we learned? --What questions and needs remain?
--What is the balance between accountability and understanding learning by examining why, how and for whom blended approaches work?
Open-ended discussion and wrap up --Recommendations for researchers, evaluators, iNACOL. --Q & A on issues of interest and other topics BLENDED LEARNING MODELS (Innosight, 2010)
Model 1: Face-to-Face Driver
The programs that fit in the face-to-face-driver category all retain face-to-face teachers to deliver most of their curricula. The physical teacher deploys online learning on a case-by-case basis to supplement or remediate, often in the back of the classroom or in a technology lab.
Model 2: Rotation
The common feature in the rotation model is that, within a given course, students rotate on a fixed schedule between learning online in a one-to-one, self-paced environment and sitting in a classroom with a traditional face-to-face teacher. It is the model most in between the traditional face-to-face classroom and online learning because it involves a split between the two and, in some cases, between remote and onsite. The face-to-face teacher usually oversees the online work.
Model 3: Flex
Programs with a flex model feature an online platform that delivers most of the curricula. Teachers provide on-site support on a flexible and adaptive as-needed basis through in-person tutoring sessions and small group sessions. Many dropout-recovery and credit-recovery blended programs fit into this model.
Model 4: Online Lab
The online-lab model characterizes programs that rely on an online platform to deliver the entire course but in a brick-and-mortar lab environment. Usually these programs provide online teachers. Paraprofessionals supervise, but offer little content expertise. Often students that participate in an online-lab program also take traditional courses and have typical block schedules.
Model 5: Self-Blend
The nearly ubiquitous version of blended learning among American high school students is the self-blend model, which encompasses any time students choose to take one or more courses online to supplement their traditional school’s catalog. The online learning is always remote, which distinguishes it from the online-lab model, but the traditional learning is in a brick-and-mortar school. All supplemental online schools that offer a la carte courses to individual students facilitate self-blending.
Model 6: Online Driver
The online-driver model involves an online platform and teacher that deliver all curricula. Students work remotely for the most part. Face-to-face check-ins are sometimes optional and other times required. Some of these programs offer brick-andmortar components as well, such as extracurricular activities
Blended Education Bibliography Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.
Brunner, D. (2007). Using "Hybrid" Effectively in Christian Higher Education. Christian Scholar's Review, 36 (2), 115 - 126.
Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Blended education for primary and secondary pupils. Better: Evidence-Based Education 5(Autumn), 16-17.
Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Getting students more learning time online: Distance Education in Support of Expanded Learning Time. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
www.americanprogress.org/ issues/2009/05/distance_learning.html
Christensen, T.K. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235-243.
Colwell, J. (2002). Experiences With A Hybrid Class: Tips And Pitfalls. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 2(2) 9-12.
Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355.
Cooner, T., & Hickman, G. (2008). Child protection teaching: Student's experience if a blended learning design. Social Work Education, 27(6), 647-657.
Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.
de beer, M., & Mason, R. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. Innovations in education and Teaching International, 46(2), 213-226.
Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning media and technology, 31(2), 93-116.
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. E-Learning 3(3), 54.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004, March 30). Blended learning . EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin.
Ellis, R., Steed, A., & Applebee, A. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312-335.
Fox, M. (2002). Keeping the blended promise. E-Learning 3(3), 26-29.
Gallini, J., & Barron, D. (2002). Participants' perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156.
Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gonzales, C. (2009a). What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education.
Gonzales, C. (2009b). Teaching in "blended" learning environments: How are conceptions of teaching and eTeaching associated? Paper presented at Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009 Auckland from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/gonzales.pdf .
Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: The impact of elearning on academic identities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 553-564.
Hargis J, & Schofield K, (2007), Integrating Online Learning into Elementary Classrooms. In Cavanaugh C, & Blomeyer B, Eds. What Works in K–12 Online Learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9 -24.
Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: the use of contemporary learning spaces Learning Media and Technology,33(2), 139-150.
Humbert, J. & Vignare, K. (2005). RIT introduces blended learning—successfully! In J. C. Moore (ed.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, Wisdom from the Sloan Consortium, Volume 2 in the Wisdom Series. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Jefferies, P., Grodzinsky, F., & Griffin, J. (2003). Advantages and problems in using information communication technologies to support the teaching of a multi-institutional computer ethics course. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 191-202.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2009). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced learning and teaching: Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/practice. Accessed 13/01/10.
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K. A., & Joosten, T. (In Press). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A. King, K. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 231-246.
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-Learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121.
Kiser, K. (2002). “Is Blended Best?,” e-learning, June, 10.
Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media 28(2-3), 101-113.
Lago, E. (2000). “The Hybrid Experience: How Sweet It Is,” Converge, Nov., 32–36.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge.
McDonald, A. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot, UK: Good Publishing Ltd.
McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics' role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3 -14.
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty Best Practices Using Blended Learning in E-Learning and Face-to-Face Instruction. International Journal on E-Learning. 5 (3), pp. 313-337. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. R. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical classroom: A third-generation Activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072.
Nel, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: applying a process planning model. Systems Practice Action Research, 19, 553-576.
Nicholas, H., & Wan, N. (January 01, 2010). A Progressive Pedagogy for Online Learning With High-Ability Secondary School Students: A Case Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 3, 239-251.
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education.
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ ppss/reports.html
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-26.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), 227-233.
Schuhmann, R., & Skopek, T. (2009). Blurring the lines. A blended learning model in a graduate public administration programme. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 219-232.
Singh, H. (November 01, 2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Educational Technology, 43, 6, 51-54.
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.
Steel, C. (2009). Reconciling university teacher beliefs to create learning designs for LMS environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 399-420.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81-94.
Verkroost, M., Meijerink, L., Lintsen, H., & Veen, W. (2008). Finding a balance in dimensions of blended learning. International Journal on E-learning, 7(3), 499-522.
Walker, R., & Arnold, I. (2004). Introducing group-based asynchronous learning to business education : Reflections on effective course design and delivery. Educational Media International, 41(3), 253-265.
Watson, J, (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education, iNACOL Promising Practices in Online Learning, Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Table of Contents
Susan Lowes, Teachers College/Columbia University
Cathy Cavanaugh, University of Florida
Session Information
Session Description
This session is designed as an opportunity for those who plan to undertake or supervise evaluation or research on blended education to share perspectives, to work together to build a common language, and to articulate the issues surrounding research and evaluation in this rapidly growing field. The afternoon will open with a discussion of the broad purposes of, and models for, K-12 blended learning, followed by a series of small-group round tables in which we will discuss the issues, challenges, and needs faced by those attempting to implement blended education, the key research questions that need to be addressed, the research and evaluation methods that are appropriate for these questions, and the data and knowledge management systems that can support this research. Participants will take with them examples of research and evaluation approaches specific to blended education, as well as promising questions for advancing practice through comparisons within and across models.Session Twitter Hashtag: #vss308p2
Presentation Materials and Contributions
AGENDA
Overview and introductions of facilitators
Introductions of participants by organization/context type
Definitions and purposes of blended education:
--Changing the time, place, and nature of teaching and learning possible in K-12 education
Overview of blended education models as outlined in the 2010 and 2011 Innosight reports
--A framework with attention to the alignment of models with programs' purposes and missions
- Program-level blending combines online and onground courses (EPGY, FL, KY, MI, Nashville)
o Online courses accessed in the school lab as part of a student’s scheduleo Online courses accessed outside of school supplementing a student’s schedule
- School-level blending integrates online and onground experiences in the same course (KIPP, Rocketship, Riverside, Thesys)
o Activities experienced as a full class group in the same room o Activities experienced in small groups in the same roomo Activities occurring in a classroom and a lab
o Activities occurring in a school, online and offsite according to the teacher’s design
o Activities occurring in a school and online according to individual student needs
o Activities occurring primarily online with teacher/tutor support as needed by individual students
o Activities occurring primarily online with onsite teacher/tutor support as needed by individual students
o Activities occurring primarily online and offsite with teacher/tutor interaction onsite as needed by individual students
--Table discussions and response to models and definitions: limits, gaps, aids to understanding possibilities...?
Examples of blended education program effectiveness measures and findings showing where the field is at this time
--What questions have been ASKED, what are the greatest gaps that remain?
--What models are associated with different measures?
--What research questions have been addressed, what are the greatest gaps that remain?
--What models HAVE BEEN examined?
--What measures and findings have participants used?
[Tables move]
What are the challenges of doing this research and evaluation?
Notes from the session:
Questions of importance for guiding practice that can be addressed by research and evaluation
--What have we learned?
--What questions and needs remain?
--What is the balance between accountability and understanding learning by examining why, how and for whom blended approaches work?
Open-ended discussion and wrap up
--Recommendations for researchers, evaluators, iNACOL.
--Q & A on issues of interest and other topics
BLENDED LEARNING MODELS (Innosight, 2010)
Model 1: Face-to-Face Driver
The programs that fit in the face-to-face-driver category all retain face-to-face teachers to deliver most of their curricula. The physical teacher deploys online learning on a case-by-case basis to supplement or remediate, often in the back of the classroom or in a technology lab.
Model 2: Rotation
The common feature in the rotation model is that, within a given course, students rotate on a fixed schedule between learning online in a one-to-one, self-paced environment and sitting in a classroom with a traditional face-to-face teacher. It is the model most in between the traditional face-to-face classroom and online learning because it involves a split between the two and, in some cases, between remote and onsite. The face-to-face teacher usually oversees the online work.
Model 3: Flex
Programs with a flex model feature an online platform that delivers most of the curricula. Teachers provide on-site support on a flexible and adaptive as-needed basis through in-person tutoring sessions and small group sessions. Many dropout-recovery and credit-recovery blended programs fit into this model.
Model 4: Online Lab
The online-lab model characterizes programs that rely on an online platform to deliver the entire course but in a brick-and-mortar lab environment. Usually these programs provide online teachers. Paraprofessionals supervise, but offer little content expertise. Often students that participate in an online-lab program also take traditional courses and have typical block schedules.
Model 5: Self-Blend
The nearly ubiquitous version of blended learning among American high school students is the self-blend model, which encompasses any time students choose to take one or more courses online to supplement their traditional school’s catalog. The online learning is always remote, which distinguishes it from the online-lab model, but the traditional learning is in a brick-and-mortar school. All supplemental online schools that offer a la carte courses to individual students facilitate self-blending.
Model 6: Online Driver
The online-driver model involves an online platform and teacher that deliver all curricula. Students work remotely for the most part. Face-to-face check-ins are sometimes optional and other times required. Some of these programs offer brick-andmortar components as well, such as extracurricular activities
Blended Education Bibliography
Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6).
Bonk, C. J. (2009). In The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
Bonk, C. & Graham, C. (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Brown, D.G. (2001). Hybrid courses are best. Syllabus, online
http://www.wfu.edu/~brown/Syllabus%20Articles/SylHybrid%20Courses.htm
Brunner, D. (2007). Using "Hybrid" Effectively in Christian Higher Education. Christian Scholar's Review, 36 (2), 115 - 126.
Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Blended education for primary and secondary pupils. Better: Evidence-Based Education 5(Autumn), 16-17.
Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Getting students more learning time online: Distance Education in Support of Expanded Learning Time. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
www.americanprogress.org/ issues/2009/05/distance_learning.html
Christensen, T.K. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235-243.
Colwell, J. (2002). Experiences With A Hybrid Class: Tips And Pitfalls. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 2(2) 9-12.
Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355.
Cooner, T., & Hickman, G. (2008). Child protection teaching: Student's experience if a blended learning design. Social Work Education, 27(6), 647-657.
Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.
de beer, M., & Mason, R. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. Innovations in education and Teaching International, 46(2), 213-226.
Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning media and technology, 31(2), 93-116.
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. E-Learning 3(3), 54.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004, March 30). Blended learning . EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin.
Dziuban, C.D., Moskal, P. D., Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Ellis, R., Steed, A., & Applebee, A. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312-335.
Fox, M. (2002). Keeping the blended promise. E-Learning 3(3), 26-29.
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8 (10).
Gallini, J., & Barron, D. (2002). Participants' perceptions of web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning approaches and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156.
Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gonzales, C. (2009a). What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education.
Gonzales, C. (2009b). Teaching in "blended" learning environments: How are conceptions of teaching and eTeaching associated? Paper presented at Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009 Auckland from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/gonzales.pdf .
Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: The impact of elearning on academic identities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 553-564.
Hargis J, & Schofield K, (2007), Integrating Online Learning into Elementary Classrooms. In Cavanaugh C, & Blomeyer B, Eds. What Works in K–12 Online Learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9 -24.
Hensley, G. (2005)). Creating a hybrid college course: Instructional design notes and recommendations for beginners. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(2).
Hofman, J. (2001). Blended Learning Case Study. Online http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/apr2001/hofmann.html
Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: the use of contemporary learning spaces Learning Media and Technology,33(2), 139-150.
Humbert, J. & Vignare, K. (2005). RIT introduces blended learning—successfully! In J. C. Moore (ed.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, Wisdom from the Sloan Consortium, Volume 2 in the Wisdom Series. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Jefferies, P., Grodzinsky, F., & Griffin, J. (2003). Advantages and problems in using information communication technologies to support the teaching of a multi-institutional computer ethics course. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 191-202.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2009). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced learning and teaching: Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/practice. Accessed 13/01/10.
Kaleta, R., & Garnham, C. (2001). Hybrid I: UW System Hybrid Course Project — Overview, Faculty Development, Student Resources. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K. A., & Joosten, T. (In Press). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A. King, K. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 231-246.
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-Learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121.
Kiser, K. (2002). “Is Blended Best?,” e-learning, June, 10.
Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media 28(2-3), 101-113.
Lago, E. (2000). “The Hybrid Experience: How Sweet It Is,” Converge, Nov., 32–36.
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 26 (1), 18-23.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge.
McDonald, A. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot, UK: Good Publishing Ltd.
McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics' role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3 -14.
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty Best Practices Using Blended Learning in E-Learning and Face-to-Face Instruction. International Journal on E-Learning. 5 (3), pp. 313-337. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. R. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical classroom: A third-generation Activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072.
Nel, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: applying a process planning model. Systems Practice Action Research, 19, 553-576.
Nicholas, H., & Wan, N. (January 01, 2010). A Progressive Pedagogy for Online Learning With High-Ability Secondary School Students: A Case Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 3, 239-251.
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education.
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ ppss/reports.html
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-26.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), 227-233.
Otte, G. (2005). Using blended learning to drive faculty development (and vice versa). In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 71-83). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Paine, P. F. (2003). An outline for designing a hybrid first year language course with WebCT. Eric Document ED479812.
Picciano, A.G. & Dziuban, C., Editors (2006). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Power, M. (2008). The Emergence of a Blended Online Learning Environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 4, http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/power_1208.htm
Reasons, Saxon G., Valadares, Kevin, & Slavkin, Michael. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 9(1), 83-94.
Reay, J.(2001). Blended learning: A fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review 4(3), 1.
Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
Riffell, S.K., & Sibley, D.F. (2004). Can hybrid course formats increase attendance in undergraduate environmental science courses? Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 33, 1-5.
Schuhmann, R., & Skopek, T. (2009). Blurring the lines. A blended learning model in a graduate public administration programme. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 219-232.
Singh, H. (November 01, 2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Educational Technology, 43, 6, 51-54.
Skibba, K. A. (2006, March). A Cross-Case Analysis of How Faculty Connect Learning in a Hybrid Courses. Proceedings of 47th Annual Adult Education Research Conference. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Soules, M. (2005). Collaboration and publication in hybrid online courses.
Spilka, R., (2002, March). Approximately "Real World" Learning with the Hybrid Model. Teaching with Technology Today, 8 (6).
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.
Steel, C. (2009). Reconciling university teacher beliefs to create learning designs for LMS environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 399-420.
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, W. M., & Matthews R. H. (2003). A study comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statistics classes. Journal of Statistics, 11(3), np.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81-94.
Verkroost, M., Meijerink, L., Lintsen, H., & Veen, W. (2008). Finding a balance in dimensions of blended learning. International Journal on E-learning, 7(3), 499-522.
Walker, R., & Arnold, I. (2004). Introducing group-based asynchronous learning to business education : Reflections on effective course design and delivery. Educational Media International, 41(3), 253-265.
Watson, J, (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education, iNACOL Promising Practices in Online Learning, Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Young, J.R. (2002, March 22). 'Hybrid' teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33-34.
Web Resources
Blended Learning resource guides from New South Wales, http://www.cap.nsw.edu.au/blended_learning/blended_learning.html
Hensley, G. (2005). Creating a hybrid college course: Instructional design notes and recommendations for beginners.
TheSys Case Study, 2010, http://www.thesysintl.com/thesys2/case-studies-summer-2010.html